Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone: What discussions he has had with Ministerial colleagues on the use made by patients resident in Wales of health services in England.

Wayne David: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome, and I am sure that he is right to say that I will be extremely busy in my post. The issue he touches upon will undoubtedly require my attention. However, I should stress that the health service budget in Wales has increased dramatically over the past few years. That is true, too, for the current budget: the draft budget from the Welsh Assembly Government again proposes an increase that is far in excess of the rate of inflation. I therefore think that there is plenty of scope within that broad expansion of finance to address the issues the hon. Gentleman is concerned about.

Betty Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware of the importance of tourism in my constituency. Does he share my view that the minimum wage makes a significant contribution to the development of responsible employment in the catering and tourist industries, and does he share my joy that it was this Labour Government that legislated on this matter, for which workers in this country have been fighting for 100 years?

Paul Murphy: Yes, I do share my hon. Friend's joy about the minimum wage, which, as she says, we introduced. As she also said, it particularly helps those in the tourism and catering industries, which are especially important businesses in her constituency and north Wales in general. Government plans to amend the regulations so that tips can no longer count towards the payment of the minimum wage are especially welcome, and are a credit to the trade unions and newspapers who campaigned for that. That is, of course, very important for those businesses and industries to which my hon. Friend refers.

Wayne David: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Prime Minister is keen for the country to have a football team at the 2012 games, but there is clearly some work to be done to reassure the football associations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. He can rest assured that we will continue our dialogue in a positive way.

Elfyn Llwyd: What discussions he has had with the First Minister and Ministerial colleagues on deposits made by Welsh local authorities in Icelandic bank accounts; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I shall certainly do that, but it is a matter both for us in the United Kingdom Government—he is right to point out the Treasury's role—and for the Welsh Assembly Government, who are directly responsible for local government finance in Wales. I must tell him that the first issue is that we must try to get the money back from the Icelandic banks. As he knows, intense negotiations for that to happen are currently taking place.
	Of course, if there are financial problems in the nine local councils affected in Wales—there is nothing to say that there are problems at the moment—the Welsh Assembly Government assure me that they will step in to help. The hon. Gentleman should be assured that we are working very closely together on what is an important issue.
	As far as the Treasury guidance is concerned, it always stressed the balance between security and breadth of investment on the one hand and ordinary investment on the other.

Cross-Border Transport Links

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that as the price of oil and gas comes down there should be the benefit that gas and electricity bills become lower. We took action in September with £1 billion in an energy package. Lower income households—600,000 people—are benefiting from lower social tariffs, and prices will not rise at all this winter for almost half a million of the most needy households. We will continue to look at what can be done, but what we will not do, whether for petrol or for gas and electricity bills, is to take the advice of the official Opposition, because their fuel duty stabiliser would mean that we would have to increase the tax on petrol by 3p a litre.

Dennis Skinner: Will the Prime Minister give us a rock-solid assurance that whatever he does to clear the debts of the nation's finances, he will never, ever, meet a Russian billionaire to try and cadge the money? We will leave that to the sleazy Tory party opposite.

Ian Pearson: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall now make a statement on the latest Government measures to help small businesses. The Government understand that many small firms are having real difficulties as a result of the credit crunch and worldwide economic slowdown. Those companies are critical to our long-term economic success. More than 99 per cent. of UK businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises. They contribute as much as large businesses to UK output, and nearly 60 per cent. of private sector jobs.
	We have always made getting the business environment right for SMEs a priority, and since 1997, 1 million more small businesses have been created. UK SMEs employ 1.5 million more people; they are more productive and more innovative, and they survive longer. Most recently, our enterprise strategy set out our renewed vision to make the UK the world's most enterprising economy and the best place to grow and start a business. We increased the small firms loan guarantee lending allocations by 20 per cent. for 2008, boosted enterprise programmes and committed to a new approach that avoids placing unnecessary regulatory burdens on smaller firms.
	These tough times have only made us only more determined to help SMEs. We need to be practical and innovative; above all, we need to ensure that what we do makes a real difference. We are meeting business organisations and businesses across the country to discuss the problems that they are facing, such as cash flow, access to finance and higher bank charges and costs, and to ensure that their views are reflected in Government action.
	Our first priority has been restoring financial stability. Without a strong financial system, small businesses cannot access the credit that they need, homeowners struggle with their mortgages, and trade in the high street slows down. But as the impact of the global financial squeeze hits small businesses further, the Government believe that it is not enough for us to focus on financial stability alone. So, building on the measures that we have already brought forward, the Government announced yesterday further action, with immediate effect, to help SMEs through these tougher times.
	For SMEs, cash dominates: cash in—prompt payment—and cash out, to their work force, for inputs and to the Revenue. Over the past year, the time that organisations take to pay their bills to suppliers has increased, intensifying the cash-flow pressures of many businesses. The Government are determined to do everything they can to help. The Government will aim to pay their suppliers as soon as possible, and within 10 days at the latest. That will bring forward billions of pounds-worth of payments, on top of the majority of payments already made within 10 days. The regional development agencies, which spend around £750 million annually with suppliers, have also committed to that. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government wrote to the Local Government Association, and the chief executive of the national health service wrote to NHS trusts, asking those public bodies to review their payment performance and to follow the Government's lead.
	I recognise the essential role that the approach of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to business tax compliance can play in managing the economic downturn. HMRC already has a policy of flexibility in dealing with struggling businesses, and I know that the Treasury will continue to impress upon it the importance of implementing and publicising that policy in the current climate. We are also working with the Institute of Credit Management and all leading finance and business organisations to promote prompt payment and ensure that businesses have the best advice and guidance on managing cash flow.
	The Government's measures of financial support to the banking industry are designed to stabilise UK banks and support the long-term strength of the economy, which helps small businesses. As part of the recapitalisation package, Royal Bank of Scotland, HBOS and Lloyds TSB committed to
	"maintain the availability and active marketing of competitively priced lending to SMEs at a level at least equivalent to that of 2007".
	Small businesses must know that the banks are open for business. RBS, HBOS and Lloyds TSB make up 50 per cent. of small business lending, but given that they operate in a competitive environment, we can expect other banks to follow suit. The Government will monitor how recapitalised banks are delivering their commitment on SME lending. We will ask the banks how they will achieve that, including the availability of capital and liquidity allocated for small businesses, marketing plans, and their principles for SME lending, from head office to branch level.
	We want to see banks taking appropriate risk assessments on SME lending—being responsible but not unduly risk-averse, and not passing on unreasonable costs. The Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will be meeting all the banks and building societies tomorrow to discuss those issues, and what small businesses can expect from them.
	The Government have also been brokering contact between UK banks and the European Investment Bank. The four largest UK banks have now signalled their initial interest in negotiating loans totalling about £1 billion from the EIB to lend to UK SMEs. I hope that we will be able to make rapid progress on that for small businesses.
	It is critical at this difficult time that businesses have access to support and advice that helps them to survive now and succeed in the future. Business Link advisers will provide a free health check for every small business, whatever its size, sector or location, and other advice on how to adapt to changing economic conditions and be ready for the economic upturn.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills yesterday announced that small businesses are the focus of £350 million of Government funds to help them get through the tougher economic climate by building the skills and expertise of their workers. The Government are making improvements to Train to Gain that will deliver advice and funding for training, with the minimum bureaucracy and delay. For the first time, training at level 2 will be free for all SME employees regardless of whether they already have qualifications at that level, and there will be free bite-size courses in business-critical areas, including business improvement techniques and customer service, to raise productivity. Management and leadership training will also be opened up to the smallest employers so that it is now available to employers with five to 250 employees.
	Small businesses drive our economy forward, and during this global economic downturn, the Government are determined to give the millions of people who run and work for SMEs the chance to maintain their livelihood and prepare for better times in the future. That is why we have brought forward these measures, and we will continue to do all we can through the work of the National Economic Council to look for and implement solutions that help SMEs. I commend this statement to the House.

Ian Pearson: I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his courteous welcome to me at the Dispatch Box.
	What we are doing as a Government is concentrating on the real work of helping small businesses through difficult economic times. I would have liked to think that he would welcome the package of measures that we are announcing today. He mentioned small business rate relief, so may I remind him that the Opposition voted against the Bill introducing it?
	Let me address the questions that the hon. Gentleman posed, first about the £350 million announced by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. That focuses on SMEs as a top priority and relaxes the rules on spending on training to gain. I should have thought that that would be widely welcomed at a time when companies are thinking about shedding staff and about whether to move to short-time working. I should have thought that the ability to say, "You can work four days a week and you can train for one, so you will have additional skills," would be warmly welcomed during these difficult economic times. I am surprised that the Opposition do not seem to accept that.
	On the subject of prompt payment, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that Government Departments report annually on their progress in meeting payment targets. Yes, it is an ambitious target that Government Departments pay within 10 days—although I think that the majority of payments are already made within 10 days. If we can get this right, it could be a big boost to help small companies, but we are paying with taxpayers' money and we need to make sure, when we are safeguarding the public purse, that the goods and services have been delivered and the invoice is right. We will then do everything we can to ensure that it is paid within 10 days.
	Let me repeat the point about bank lending. We are not saying that there should be lending at 2007 levels; we are saying that the availability of that funding should be at 2007 levels, and that we expect banks to market actively and to offer competitively priced products to the SME sector.
	There is clearly an issue in relation to rates. There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence out there suggesting that some banks are starting to look again at their lending practices and are insisting on higher margins. Although we cannot interfere in individual lending decisions and it would be wrong to do so, it is right that we should expect banks to be clear about their lending principles. That will be one of the subjects for discussion when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Chancellor meet the banks tomorrow.
	There was an accusation from the Opposition that we have been too slow in taking action. In March we announced that we would increase the small firms loan guarantee scheme by 20 per cent., because we understood that companies were going through difficult times and would need extra support. We are making such decisions. I heard the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) argue last night in the debate that there should be lower spending. I do not see how, in our current difficult economic times, low spending will help the SMEs that he professes to want to support. That is bad economics, and he should be ashamed of himself.

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend raises a number of points, most of which are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Administration and its Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I cannot reply to those questions, but in response to his question about his desire for HMRC to show more flexibility, I can be pretty clear. We do not want HMRC to be first in the queue to put companies into bankruptcy in order to get their money. We want it to be flexible, to recognise companies that are in difficulty and to discuss issues with them on a case-by-case basis—and I hope that that is what HMRC will do.

Ian Pearson: What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that, in my view, the measures we have announced can help to make a real difference and are attuned to the difficult times that we face. I am sure he will welcome the entrepreneurs' relief on the first £1 million of capital gains, and also the effective tax rate of 17.2 per cent. on a £10 million capital gain. I do not think that £17.2 per cent. on a £10 million capital gain is an unreasonable price to pay.

Harry Cohen: The Prime Minister has said that, at the European summit, he put pressure on the European Investment Bank to release millions of pounds for small businesses in this country. How will that money filter through to small businesses in , for example, Leyton and Wanstead?

Ian Pearson: That matter, which is clearly one for the Department for Work and Pensions, does not relate to the statement before the House. However, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, there are many small businesses in his constituency and the region, which are the backbone of that local economy. It is right that this package of support is being made available to them. I hope he will welcome it, and I also hope he will appreciate that if his Front-Bench colleagues got their way and cut lending, it would not be possible to introduce such packages and small businesses in his constituency would be unable to get the support to which I think they are entitled.

George Howarth: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make requirements about the integration of health and safety issues in education and vocational training; and for connected purposes.
	Accidents at work destroy lives and cost money. Many, although not all, can be prevented. No amount of regulation or training can wholly eliminate human risk or error, but it is right that dangerous practices should be regulated. The principal focus of this Bill is to change mindsets, so that by the time young people reach employment they already have an understanding of the principles and practice of good health and safety. Correspondingly, the purpose of the Bill is to reduce the human, economic and social toll that results from poor management of health and safety risks, through effective education and training. It would achieve that by embedding health and safety into national vocational and professional curricula and helping to provide the skills needed to keep people well and to create and sustain a modern and competitive work force.
	Before I talk about the measures in the Bill, it is important to put it in context. Some 247 people were killed at work last year and 274,000 seriously injured. Some 2.2 million suffered an illness that they attributed to work. In addition, it is estimated that up to 1,000 people a year are killed in work-related road accidents and that thousands more die from occupational cancers. That is a particular concern in Knowsley, which is represented by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who is in his place.
	In the past decade in Britain, 64 under-19s were killed at work, nearly 15,000 suffered major injuries and more than 50,000 other teenagers were hurt by their work. It has been estimated that the cost to society of workplace accidents and work-related ill health is up to £31.8 billion a year.
	Reducing the number of needlessly lost and devastated lives must be a priority. We are fortunate that there is also a strong economic rationale for doing that. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that the cost to society of workplace accidents and work-related ill health ranges between £20 billion and £31.8 billion per annum. The total cost to individuals is estimated at between £10.1 billion and £14.7 billion a year, and the cost to employers at between £3.9 billion and £7.8 billion a year. A reduction in accidents will lead to reduced costs to employers, through less staff absence, and fewer disruptions in work flow.
	The Bill provides the scope to build on the foundations already laid in schools, so that workplaces provide adequate training for all levels of the work force. Those in crucial vocational and professional roles such as architects, planners, designers, engineers, managers, doctors and teachers need to understand the essentials of health and safety so that core principles can be designed into buildings and new ventures rather than imposed after the fact.
	There is a straightforward way to ensure that standards are raised consistently across the board. We need to embed relevant health and safety understanding as an integral element of all curricula. Clearly, that needs to be tailored to different ages and levels of expertise, but it makes sense to begin at an early age by tackling health and safety in schools before students start their work experience.
	The Department of Health's national director for health and work, Dame Carol Black, has rightly pointed out that future generations will have higher expectations, stating:
	"Healthy workplaces need to become the expected norm...schools, further education and higher education have a role in embedding these expectations into the next generation."
	The good news is that much work has already been done. The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, which I should thank for providing a good deal of briefing material for the Bill, has worked with the HSE, teachers and young people themselves to produce the workplace hazard awareness course, or WHAC. It is a free resource for teachers that emphasises the need to take a balanced approach. Additionally, it is important that managers understand their responsibilities, including how to supervise young people properly, and that people vetting work placements are suitably trained in health and safety.
	A number of things could be done to ensure a safe start in work. First, teacher training should equip new teachers to deliver a short course on health and safety so that students are properly prepared for their first work experience. There is also a need for professional development to help existing teachers achieve similar objectives. Secondly, we need to teach health and safety in the classroom before young people start work experience. WHAC, produced by the IOSH and the HSE, should be delivered as part of work experience preparation and could lead to a level 3 entry qualification.
	Thirdly, work placements should be organised in suitable environments. That means that people with the right health and safety knowledge must check that employers and workplaces are suitable. Training that meets national standards would help to achieve consistency and should be applied by schools, colleges and local authorities. That could be achieved more easily if bodies that award Government funding to work placement organisers required suitably trained placement officers.
	Fourthly, employer vetting and workplace supervision need to improve. The HSE and the Learning and Skills Council have improved the guidance to those involved in educating, training and employing young people.
	Fifthly, accidents need to be properly reported so that lessons are learned. There is a general problem of accidents being under-reported both at work and in education. Schools and colleges running vocational training on their premises are currently required to report only incidents in which students are killed or taken to hospital, as they are classed as members of the public. I ask the Government to consider tightening up the reporting requirements for students in colleges and schools.
	Sixthly, health and safety needs to be a priority. The Government should signal the importance of health and safety when setting their strategic priorities for education, training and skills. There is an opportunity for the Government to show leadership on the matter. For example, in England the health and safety of young people on Government-funded programmes could be noted as a key priority in the next LSC grant letter, which is due in November.
	I welcome the Government's new Education and Skills Bill. Its drive to improve the skills of the UK's work force is a welcome opportunity to integrate core health and safety principles into the training and education system. Health and safety should be seen as a key component of modern apprenticeships and new diplomas. It should also routinely be part of the disciplines of business and management qualifications, just as they currently cover marketing, finance and human resources. Such work is already being carried out by the inter-institutional group on health, safety and risk, to ensure that adequate health and safety knowledge is provided to engineering undergraduates. One such programme is being trialled at the university of Liverpool. All of that amounts to a welcome step forward, but more needs to be done so that business schools and universities systematically include health and safety in vocational disciplines, especially MBA programmes. Health and safety at work should also be fully incorporated into the new qualifications and credit framework.
	Finally, it is worth remembering that evidence shows that people new to workplaces are at a greater relative risk of work-related injury. Rhys Davies and Paul Jones of the Warwick Institute for Employment Research estimate:
	"Those with current employment tenure of less than one month are almost 400 per cent. more likely to have a workplace injury than those with 20 years or more experience in their current job."
	Their research showed clearly that the risks are greatest in the first four months of a new job, which also has implications for those working on short-term or agency contracts.
	The Bill would create an opportunity to prepare young people so that when they begin their working lives, they are better able to handle the risks that face them. In time, that change in mindset will reduce unnecessary risk.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Howarth, Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Mr. Michael Clapham, Paul Rowen, Harry Cohen, Bob Russell, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Joan Ryan.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will tell me if this is not an appropriate time to raise this point of order, but in view of the fact that the Minister is about to move a programme motion relating to the order in which amendments are taken, it seems the appropriate time to put it to you. As you know, Sir, I wrote to you last week regarding the selection of amendments. I accept totally that it is absolutely within your discretion to decide what amendments you select for debate, and that you are not required by precedent or procedure to state the reasons why you have selected them. Nevertheless, I am asking, and I will accept it entirely if you say that my point of order is invalid or that I am not raising it at the right time, whether it is open to you to explain to the House—if it is not, I accept that—how it comes about that you have selected a large succession of new clauses on abortion when there is no reference in the Bill to abortion.

Mr. Speaker: First, the right hon. Gentleman did write to me, but I did not reply to him or to any other letters because I did not want to be drawn into this argument. It was only this morning that I was drawn into the argument, but I think that I can put on the record that I did not reply to the right hon. Gentleman for the reason that I have given. The amendments were selected because they were within the scope of the Bill; it is a simple as that. All the amendments on the Order Paper are there because they are within the scope of the Bill, and that is the explanation.

Kenneth Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do realise that, on the subject of the programme motion, it is within the powers of the House to alter the order of debate, but you do have certain powers, which are governed by convention, protecting the practice of the House and the way in which it normally expects to debate the matters regarded as most significant to large numbers of Members. Do I take it that you accept that the Speaker has no discretion whatever if the Government of the day choose to order for debate amendments, as well as new clauses, in whichever order they deem fit? Obviously, the consequence is that they are able to choose that the House debate only those matters that are not, for some reason, inconvenient for them to have debated, and everything else falls to a guillotine under our new timetabled arrangements.

Gerald Kaufman: I agree with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) that the Bill deals with large and fundamental moral issues. I am not discussing the Bill's merits at the moment, but I point out that it deals with fundamental moral issues about the human race. I therefore agree that free votes are appropriate on this Bill, just as they were on the Bill that became the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, when my party, like the hon. Gentleman's, had free votes throughout.
	After a great deal of discussion within the Labour party, our Whips have agreed to free votes along the way on this Bill. They have agreed to more free votes than they originally intended—their original intention was that we should have none. Despite the fact that Labour Members are whipped on Second Reading and on Third Reading, paragraph 3 of the parliamentary Labour party's code of conduct allows members of the PLP not to vote on an issue of this kind. Having written to the Chief Whip, I shall avail myself of paragraph 3 and not vote on Third Reading of the Bill, because I refuse to give it my support.
	The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness rightly says that the issues raised in the Bill on which amendments have been tabled and to which the Government are giving priority go to the very heart of the nature of the human race. That is why it is very important that the programme motion allows the opportunity to discuss matters that trouble me and trouble large numbers of my constituents. Such matters relate to hybrid embryos and saviour siblings, among other things. It is essential that this House is given a proper opportunity—and uses it—to debate those issues and to come to decisions on them, whatever those decisions may be. I know on which side I shall be voting, as I did in Committee in May. I go that far with what the hon. Gentleman said.
	This Bill is clearly not about abortion, which is why I raised my point of order with Mr. Speaker before we began discussing the programme motion, why I went to see him and why I wrote to him. The Bill does not contain a single word about abortion; it did not when it was originally published or when it was completed, and it does not now. I acknowledge—who would not acknowledge it?—that the issue of abortion is of profound importance, whatever view one takes on it. Many different views on abortion can be taken, so talking about pro-abortion and anti-abortion oversimplifies an approach to a topic on which people have very strong feelings. I respect those feelings, whatever side of the argument they represent. I do not regard it as appropriate for the issue of abortion, given all its profundities and the strong feelings it generates, to be pinned on to this Bill. The Bill was never tabled to deal with abortion and does not deal with it.
	The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness is right to say that the issues relating to abortion, of which there are many—the time limit is but one such issue, despite its importance; other such issues include medical approval and the question of procedure— are very important. However, it is clearly not appropriate to debate them in relation to a Bill that has nothing to do with abortion. It should be appropriate, at some stage, to debate the issues associated with abortion. Since David Steel introduced his private Member's Bill, the issue of abortion has never been introduced into, debated by or legislated on by this House of Commons as a Government issue and in Government time. As with a number of other very important moral issues, such as the legalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults, these matters have been brought before this House of Commons by private Members.
	I support the Government's motion because the abortion issue should not be pinned on to a Bill that is not about abortion. If a Member of Parliament were to be successful in the ballot in the next Session and able to introduce a Bill on the issue, it might be appropriate at that stage for the House to debate it.

Ann Widdecombe: I am in a quandary. Normally, the very mention of the words "timetable motion" is enough to have me rushing into the No Lobby, but we Conservatives have a free vote today, even on the timetable motion, and I shall not go into the No Lobby. I do think that more time should have been given to a subject of this order of magnitude, but the Government are justified in taking the view that they have taken on the order of subjects for debate. This Bill began in the other place. There was no substantial debate on abortion there, save one brief examination of a disability issue related to abortion. In other words, all the issues that were raised in this House were not raised in another place and have not been debated there. That would not matter if the Bill were starting here, but it started in another place. Surely the Government are right to say that given that we have limited time—which is a shame, because time should not be so limited—the issues that we must discuss are those in the original Bill, which have already been debated and which are still in the Bill, rather than those that were raised only at a late stage in this House, which have never been considered by the other place.
	The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), and I have never agreed on any issue even remotely connected to this subject matter, but I reluctantly have to say that I think that the motion is right. I urge people who do not normally welcome timetable motions to at least take that into account when deciding how to use their free vote.

Fiona Mactaggart: I have spoken to the Bill on a number of occasions, and on each occasion I have spoken about the embryology elements, but I have been in the Chamber when amendments relating to abortion have been discussed. It feels to me as though the issue is being treated in an asymmetrical way, so that those who sought at an earlier stage to curtail abortion rights were heard, but those who seek at this stage to extend them are to be silenced by the programme motion. Frankly, I feel that that is a failure of leadership of this House and this Government and we should rethink. I accept that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) makes a reasonable point when he says that the Bill is not necessarily the right vehicle with which to deal with this matter. If we were assured by those on the Front Bench that there would be an opportunity to deal properly with the issue, when all aspects of the abortion debate could be properly discussed, I would be content to support the programme motion. If we do not receive that assurance, I shall not feel able so to do.

David Drew: In many respects, I am pleased to follow the hon. Gentleman, because amendments Nos. 41 and 73, in my name and the names of a number of other hon. Members, are in the same vein. We wish to make it absolutely explicit, in the two amendments, that we are ruling out human genetic modification. I have always been pleased to try to do that in other areas, too. I have always been an opponent of the genetic modification of food, so it is unsurprising that I am an opponent of any attempt to allow it to happen to human beings.
	I would like to think that I have the support of the Government, and of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), in particular. On a number of occasions she has made it absolutely explicit that the Government have no intention of allowing genetic modification of human beings. I think that the argument is about how the Government say that. However, the legislation could imply—I put it no more strongly than that—something slightly different. Amendment No. 41 basically tries to clarify that the Government cannot allow themselves, or a subsequent Administration, to use secondary legislation to do what should really come within the purview of this House—to clarify by clearly stating in legislation what should and should not be allowed. Amendment No. 73 basically says that if we do not have agreement and do not want to specify outcomes, it is meaningless to permit scientists to experiment in this field.

David Burrowes: Certainly the issues are complex and certainly there has been a desire at an early stage for clarity. Whether we have all been swept along by that complexity is perhaps for others to judge. There is certainly a need for clarity, however, particularly in the definitions.
	I would like to give some examples of where that lack of clarity poses potential dangers that need to be dealt with. As the Minister will no doubt remind me when she responds, the Government's intention in adding a catch-all category to the definition of human admixed embryos in the Bill was, as she explained on a previous occasion, to provide
	"further clarity of the scope of the term,"
	adding:
	"In addition to the four precise scientific definitions already in the Bill, that will ensure that all new forms of embryos that may be developed that contain both human and animal DNA will, where the animal DNA does not predominate, fall within the regulation."— [ Official Report, 18 May 2008; Vol. 476, c. 59.]
	That is the test that we have to hold that catch-all category up to. Does it provide further clarity? Does it ensure that all new forms of embryos that we are aware of are captured? The Government's approach was that the human end of the spectrum referred to any embryo containing both animal and human DNA, where the human DNA was more than 50 per cent. of the total, and that all such embryos should and would be regulated under the Bill.
	The Joint Committee, of which I was a member, considered the matter and reported on it. The issue exercised our minds; indeed, letters were written to the Department of Health and the Home Office, given their twin responsibilities. In our conclusions, in paragraph 163, on page 47 of the report, we said:
	"The second issue centres on the human-animal boundary and which entities should be regulated as human embryos and which should be regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. We have received a lot of evidence suggesting that there is no principle, as such, which underpins the Government's choice of 50 per cent. as a cut-off point for whether an entity is sufficiently human to merit regulation by the HFEA, or whether it is more appropriately regulated as an animal by the Home Office. The 50 per cent. rule intended to be embodied in subsection (e),"
	as it was then—it has since been amended—
	"is essentially an arbitrary attempt to draw a line between what qualifies as human and what as animal."
	There can perhaps be few more important issues than what qualifies as human and what as animal.
	The Joint Committee continued, in paragraph 164:
	"We heard evidence arguing that the issue as to what proportion of the entity is human and what proportion is animal is not clear-cut."
	To pick up on the intervention that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made, the issue is a complex one that has exercised the minds of great experts. The Joint Committee continued:
	"For example, Professor Martin Bobrow, Chair of the Academy of Medical Sciences"—
	reference has already been made to that august body—
	"working party on interspecies embryos, told us that what makes an entity human rather than animal is not easily measured in DNA terms, although, if a line in the sand had to be drawn, he saw no reason why it should not be drawn at 50 per cent."
	The report continued:
	"Professor Sir Richard Gardner, Edward Penley Abraham Research Professor of the Royal Society in the University of Oxford, raised the more technical issue of what the 50 per cent. actually refers to—for example, when calculating the relative quantities of mitochondrial DNA (which may come from a cow egg) against quantities of nuclear DNA (which may come from a human skin cell), different answers would result according to whether you measured the mass or the number of genes."
	Those are the experts who say that the issue exercised their minds.
	I draw attention to the evidence given to the Committee by Professor Robin Lovell-Badge in response to my question, which was:
	"In terms of definitions and in terms of inter-species embryos would you want there to be a definition to cover animal chimeras starting with an animal embryo and a set of human cells, whether that should come into the ambit of an inter-species embryo, tetraploid complementation processes and the like"—
	we will come to that definition—
	"whether that should be subject to the Bill?"
	Dr. Lovell-Badge responded:
	"Again, you have got yourself right into a difficult position again because it is very hard to come up with any strict definition saying this is 50 per cent. human and 50 per cent. animal, therefore it falls into this category rather than this one, because things change as well. You may start off with an embryo which is 20 per cent. human and end up with something which is 60 per cent. human or vice versa."
	The challenge from the Minister to provide further clarity of the scope of the definition of what is animal, what is human and what should be subject to regulation is surely put to the test by the very nature of the subject. We must ask ourselves a serious question about clause 4—whether it contains the definitions needed for the public to understand, for us to understand and for the scientists to work with.
	The subject of amendment No. 47 is the case of embryos created by a process called tetraploid complementation. If the results were to be the same in experimentation with human-animal embryos as they are with mice, the potential exists for the embryos to end up being completely or almost completely human. In tetraploid complementation, pluripotent stem cells are combined with an embryo that has been altered in such a way that the cells in the embryo have double the number of chromosomes. The cells are then tetraploid and develop into an extra-embryonic tissue such as placenta, while the pluripotent stem cells develop into the foetus. However, this specific class of embryos would not fall within the ambit of the Bill. That is the issue that my amendment seeks to address.

John Gummer: My hon. Friend has been demonstrating how complex are these questions. Is it not true that one has a simple question to ask as well—that is, what would the general public, on whichever side they happen to be, expect us to do in trying to deal with these questions? Would it not be true that they would expect us to make sure that the examples that my hon. Friend has given came within the ambit of the legislation and did not fall outside? That is how they would understand, as well as they could, the very detailed arguments that he puts forward.

David Burrowes: I am grateful for that intervention. If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I shall come shortly to the issue of the licence.
	The fourth reason for the amendment is that proposed new section 4A(4) to the 1990 Act bans the implantation of human admixed embryos in an animal. Since the embryos in question are not defined as human admixed under current definitions in the Bill, implantation into an animal could not be banned under clause 4. The embryos would thus fall under animal legislation, potentially allowing a human foetus with an animal placenta to develop in an animal womb up to mid-gestation, without the requirement—this relates to what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said—to obtain a research licence from the Home Office. The research project would require a licence only if the research was intended to take the foetus beyond mid-gestation. If that was the intention, a licence would be required.
	The difference, as I understand it, between requiring a licence for a research project and requiring one for implantation is an unrelated animal welfare issue—not something that falls within the intention of animal legislation. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon knows, animal legislation is designed to ensure that animals are not butchered by incompetent or uncaring technicians or researchers who do not know what they are doing or do not care if animals suffer unnecessarily. In relevant cases, the researchers would need an implantation licence because the animal to be implanted would be classified as a protected animal. That is the crucial issue. In my example, the foetus developing inside would be an unprotected animal until mid-gestation. That is the gap that I am seeking to plug. Hence a licence would not be required for the research project unless the intention was to develop the foetus beyond mid-gestation. That might sound like a far-fetched scenario; some may even say that it is a science-fiction scenario.

Dawn Primarolo: I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. His basic argument relates to something falling outside the current prohibitions in the Bill. However, does he not agree that the definition of human admixed embryos, already discussed in the House, covers tetraploid complementation so that the Bill's prohibitions would apply? The embryos could not therefore be placed into an animal, which is the fear that the he is expressing. The Bill therefore deals with the problem.

David Burrowes: As always, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I want to be reassured by the Minister telling me that tetraploid complementation is fully covered by the definitions in the Bill, but according to a written answer given by Lord Hunt, that type of chimeric embryo is not covered. He said at one point that the position following mid-gestation is covered by animal legislation, but before he had said that it was not, so there is a discrepancy. I hope to be assured that all these matters will be fully covered by regulation under the Bill, but if they will not be, as I believe, all Members should unite in supporting amendment No. 47.
	During a public hearing of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I was not a member, although I note that others present were, on hybrids and chimeras on 31 January 2007, it was stated that a number of scientists had informed the Committee that at some point researchers might wish to go beyond the teratoma test and generate chimeras to demonstrate totipotency and pluripotency—Members are nodding, which suggests that they remember that comment—using human embryonic stem cells, which would clearly involve breaching the 14-day and no-implantation rules, to which we all hold. It was pointed out that would apply to adult as well as embryonic stem cells.
	The Committee also heard from Professor Blakemore, who gave evidence on 5 February 2007. In answer to questions 234, 239 and 265, he said that some scientists would eventually wish to test the multipotency of human adult stem cells and also induced pluripotent stem cells—which, as many Members know, are derived from ordinary adult cells, and which many of us believe hold great prospects for the future—by inserting them into the blastocyst of an animal embryo, implanting them and allowing them to develop. Professor Blakemore suggested that those chimeras could be allowed to develop
	"to the point of organogenesis",
	although not to term. At a public hearing of the Joint Committee on the Bill on 20 June 2007, Dr. Stephen Minger said in answer to question 646 that scientists would soon want to
	"take human embryonic stem cells, insert them into a primate blastocyst and take that blastocyst to midgestation or maybe to birth, or maybe to ten years of age."
	There is no indication that any of those scientists had tetraploid complementation in mind, although the creation of chimeric embryos to test totipotency, not just pluripotency, may indicate that it had been considered by one or two researchers. However, the scientists may have been referring to a very similar procedure whereby embryonic stem cells are inserted into normal diploid embryos rather than tetraploid embryos. In such cases, the resultant human-animal chimeric foetuses, or creatures, would contain various proportions of cells from both species. Many of us agree that that carries great concerns of its own—for example, the potential development of human gametes or of a large proportion of human brain cells in an animal. However, as the Bill is currently drafted, both those types of chimera would fall within the more permissive animal legislation. I therefore ask the Minister to consider very carefully why there should not be legislation containing proper, clearer definitions.
	Amendment No. 47 is restricted to dealing with tetraploid complementation.

Ann Widdecombe: Is it not the case that this is fairly simple? There is not a scientific consensus on the definition. There is, therefore, not a consensus among practitioners, and if there is no consensus on the definition, the Minister cannot rely on the definition in the Bill unless it is fully clarified.

John Gummer: If the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) is right, is it not true that all she needs do is support the amendment, because it merely reinforces what the Government have done? If she is wrong, we will want to the support the amendment to see that the hole is plugged. Surely we do not need to have this argument, because it is so obvious that both sides agree.

Nadine Dorries: I thank my hon. Friend for illustrating the point far better than I could. Who would have thought only a few years ago that attempts would be made in an underground tunnel in Switzerland to re-create the big bang? That is happening today, but we would have thought it ridiculous a few years ago—that it would not be possible. However, as I said, the Department of Health is arguing that the insemination of animals with human sperm could never lead to a viable foetus, and that therefore there is no need to legislate. It is just not an issue, the Department says. I think that it is a huge issue, as do many people.
	The hon. Member for Southport asked what our constituents will think of us when we shuffle through the Lobby today to vote for some of the Bill's provisions. I would find it very difficult to justify to my constituents why I had voted to allow human sperm to be inseminated into an animal. If a constituent asked me, "Why did you do that?", I would find it very difficult to explain my motives. When a Bill purporting, as we heard the Minister say today, to set global standards of regulatory efficiency fails to mark out such a fundamental ethical boundary, that is a very serious matter indeed. Moreover, it is a sinister matter.

Mark Durkan: The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North made was raised in error, because the new subsection to which she referred does not ban the activity she mentions, but licenses it. It would be banned
	"except in pursuance of a licence."
	Those were the words that she failed to mention. The new subsection states in full:
	" No person shall—
	(a) mix human gametes with animal gametes,
	(b) bring about the creation of a human admixed embryo, or
	(c) keep or use a human admixed embryo,
	except in pursuance of a licence."
	It licenses the very activity that my hon. Friend is trying to say is not permitted by the Bill.

Nadine Dorries: That makes my point even more coherently for me. Perhaps we need to legislate to ensure that this activity cannot happen even in pursuance of a licence. I cannot believe that anybody in this House believes that inserting human sperm into an animal would be a good thing to do, so why do we not clearly state in the Bill that it will not be allowed to happen? This argument is not a surprise to the Government, because it has been pointed out over and over again that the Bill would allow this activity to take place in the seeking of a licence. One has to ask why they have not addressed the issue.
	This is a sinister matter, because of the connotations. It is impossible to discuss insemination of animals with human gametes for very long without considering the infamous Soviet hybridisation trials of the 1920s. There are a huge number of historians on the Conservative Benches—I do not know how many there are on the Labour Benches—and one of the great pleasures for me, since becoming an MP, has been listening to some of those amazing and learned historians. I am sure that they will forgive me if I get anything wrong in the following paragraph.
	At that time, the Soviet authorities were struggling to rebuild Stalin's red army after it had suffered many deaths and huge defeats. Stalin told his top scientist, Ilya lvanov, to turn his skills to breeding an ultimate soldier by crossing human beings with apes. Stalin told him to breed a soldier who would not be fussy about what he ate, who did not feel pain and who was invincible. Stalin told Ivanov to use all his scientific knowledge and know-how to cross apes with humans and breed that soldier for him.
	Many people in this House might think that it is ridiculous my even mentioning what Stalin did in the 1920s, but his ideas found credence among many in the scientific community and even became quite popular among evolutionary biologists in America; as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, the idea that perhaps we could cross humans with apes and thus have almost a humanzee took root.

Nadine Dorries: I am terribly sorry, but it is historical not hysterical. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to rewrite the history books and what happened in that era, he is at liberty to do so, but I am quoting factual history. Stalin said that he wanted an invincible human being, insensitive to pain and indifferent to the quality of food he ate. That is what his scientists went off to do, and that is what took root in scientific thought in much of the western world in the 1920s.
	In Ivanov's proposed research, there was never any consideration of the potential ethical problems of such experiments. Far from condemning his proposals, Ivanov's western colleagues and patrons were fascinated by them—and that is the point that I am trying to make. The Department of Health says that what we do today will never be abused or subject to experimentation in the future, but I would not be so sure. By their very nature, thank goodness, scientists push back the boundaries of research, and they may decide to see what would happen if they put human gametes into animals. They may see that as a valuable line of research.

William Cash: Would my hon. Friend be interested to learn that the United States had a commission to study ethical problems in medicine in 1982, and in its report "Splicing Life" it called into question the issue of human/animal hybrids? It asked whether genetic engineering could be used to develop a group of virtual slaves, partly human, partly lower animal, to do people's bidding, so that is not as fanciful as some Labour Members seem to think.

Nadine Dorries: I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable intervention.
	I am not for one moment suggesting that the Government intend to follow the example of Stalin in the 1920s. I am not suggesting that they will select a team of experts and dispatch it to inseminate chimpanzee females with human sperm to obtain, if possible, a hybrid of the two species. I do not believe that it is the Government's intention to do that. However, let me point out several important comparisons with the Soviet experiments.
	Ivanov's experiments were legal. I suppose that should hardly surprise us—he was working under one of the most brutal totalitarian regimes the world has ever known, at the personal behest of one of history's bloodiest dictators. He was allowed to experiment with humans and chimpanzees. Soviet scientists had precious few personal freedoms in the 1920s—they could not buy their own homes or shop for the food that they wanted—but they enjoyed the legal freedom to carry out experiments involving placing human gametes in animals.
	Such was life in Stalinist Russia, but of course no enlightened 21st century western democracy would ever countenance allowing such things in law. Of course it would not, because its Government would ensure that they learned a key lesson from history and what happened in the 1920s, and would legislate to ensure that it could not and would not happen again. I am using the example of those 1920s experiments to say that that is what we should do today. We should legislate today to ensure that such experiments will never be legal.
	The Department of Health insists that inseminating chimpanzees with human sperm could never produce hybrid offspring, and therefore no scientist would ever try. But the Ivanov episode shows that there is just enough hypothetical possibility in such a proposal to entice a certain kind of scientist. The chromosomal differences between some animals that can mate—such as goats and sheep—is greater than between humans and chimpanzees. There has been reference to a press article in which scientists speculated whether inseminating chimps with human sperm could produce offspring, and predicted that were it legal, some of their less squeamish colleagues were bound to try it. So we actually have members of the scientific community saying that if this is allowed to go through today, some of their colleagues will try it. The scientists are saying that themselves—

Nadine Dorries: The hon. Gentleman is shouting, "Rubbish," from a sedentary position. He is not saying that I am talking rubbish, but that the scientific community is talking rubbish. There are those in the scientific community who have said that their colleagues will try to use this loophole if it is allowed to remain in the Bill. It is not I who say that, but the scientific community.
	Members of the scientific community said that some of their less squeamish colleagues were bound to try to insert human sperm into an animal. The reporter was even able to find a professor of applied philosophy at a UK university who claimed to see no ethical objections to the creation of "humanzees". A professor in a UK university used that terminology! The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) can shake his head as much as he wants. I despair to think that a scientist would believe there were no ethical objections to such behaviour. Like many people, I applaud scientists for their inquisitive nature. Thank goodness they exist and experiment constantly. However, the role of the House, the Government and Parliament is to legislate to curb that enthusiasm and that inquisitive nature. That is why the Bill should and must close the loophole to protect us all from the creation of humanzees, as the professor calls them.
	When it comes to placing a human admixed embryo into an animal or of a non-human embryo or gametes into a woman, the Government have taken the wise steps of ensuring that such procedures remain strictly hypothetical, because they are banned by law. If the placement of non-human embryos or gametes into a woman is to be prohibited by the Bill, why are we allowing this loophole to go through? Whether there are any budding Ivanovs working in Britain's research facilities becomes irrelevant if new clause 24 and amendment No. 50 are passed. For that reason, I hope that the House will have the opportunity to divide on them.
	In conclusion, I cannot help reflecting on the farcical nature of the topic under discussion. We are in the midst of the remaining stages of what is supposed to be benchmark legislation of impeccable ethical and technological integrity, but Members such as I have to support a new clause as basic and ethically uncomplicated as the one before us. Plenty of intricate and huge ethical issues are as yet not satisfactorily resolved in the Bill—the subject of saviour siblings will not even reach the light of day. How ludicrous it is, in those circumstances, that we are debating the placing of human sperm into an animal. How absurd it is that the Government, by failing to close the loophole, have allowed themselves to stand shamed by direct comparison with the most distasteful ethical excesses of Stalin's Russia.
	I thank the hon. Member for Southport for his good sense in tabling new clause 24 and supporting amendment No. 50. I hope that I have the opportunity to vote on them in due course.

Kevin Barron: I was about to explain why I oppose amendments Nos. 47 and 50 and new clause 24. Earlier, I intervened on the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who is not in his place at the moment. In the past 48 hours, all hon. Members will have received a short briefing from the Medical Research Council. The text was agreed by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Association of Medical Research Charities, the Wellcome Trust and the MRC itself. There is a consensus on different issues among those organisations that we, as legislators, have accepted for many years. I know that various hon. Members have sat on some of those bodies, as lay or other members, and that they have brought their experience back to the House. We have a duty to recognise what the collective voice of the scientific community says about different pieces of legislation.
	The scientific community has said that it believes that the two amendments and the new clause to which I have referred should be rejected. I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State thinks about that recommendation—we will have to wait and see—but I am happier to accept the advice in that brief than the advice in some of the other briefs that have been read out in this debate. I would not always accept the argument put forward by these organisations, but I shall briefly explain why I do accept it today.
	The brief states:
	"We oppose the amendments which would have the effect of limiting valuable research which can be undertaken using human gametes in animals...While we recognise that gametes are special, in that they are cells involved in reproduction, the reasons for studying human gametes in the context of an animal is to learn more about how gametes develop and function."
	Many reasons are given in debates such as this for looking at different areas of research, but the briefing note says that this particular research
	"is important in the study of male infertility."
	Time constraints today mean that we will not be able to discuss male infertility, but it remains a major issue in society. I have been very lucky in my life to be able to have children and grandchildren without ever having to worry about whether I could be a father, but many of our constituents go through the torture of infertility. Some of them, unfortunately, find it hard to afford treatment in the private sector, and Ministers will know that over the years I have spoken about the deficiencies of NHS infertility provision. However, the most important thing is that scientists should continue their research into these matters, as that is how they can help citizens who have not been as lucky as I have been when it comes to having a family.

Evan Harris: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Another example of the sort of research to which he has referred is the process by which ovarian tissue, for example, is engrafted onto an animal and then tested for the effects of chemotherapy. That is impossible—or at least very difficult—to do in vitro, without that sort of animal model. For good reasons, the Bill defines gametes as cells in the ovary or the testes at any stage in their development, including their very early stages. That is why banning the placement of human gametes in animals would prevent research, currently being done in this country, that involves research into the effect of chemotherapy on those cells' development. Clearly, that research would play into the issue of infertility.

Kevin Barron: Well, you tell me if you have.

Evan Harris: I was not going to speak in this debate, but the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and those of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) require a brief response.
	First, we have amendment No. 49, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport. It would add the words "via cytoplasm" to the provisions of clause 3, and it touches on the issue raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). The hon. Gentleman is correct: there is no longer an absolute ban in primary legislation on some of the things that the Government clearly intend to ban, because it requires the secondary legislation to be written, as I am sure that it would be, in such a way as to allow only those forms of treatment of mitochondrial disease that are caused by cytoplasmic factors, and only in such a way that there is no breach of the provisions and policies enunciated by the Government, namely that there will be no human reproductive cloning, or germ-line nuclear genetic amendment.
	I have already said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Southport that it would be better for the primary legislation to state what it intends in purest terms. It is unfortunate that the Government have not found a way to do that. I believe that the Government said in Committee that they had tried to draft the legislation so that such practice would be restricted in such a way. I do not see why a phrase such as "via cytoplasm" or something similar would not be acceptable, at least to narrow the issue. I do not accept for a moment that the current wording opens the door to those things feared by my hon. Friend, but given the battle we have had to get to this stage, in which we have had to overcome people whipping up fear about what might happen—we have heard some rather dismal examples today—it would be better if the legislation were clear. It is unfortunate that it is not, and for that reason, I would support amendment No. 49.
	The second issue relates to new clause 24, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport and others, which would ban the placing of human gametes into an animal. This was dealt with in Committee, thanks to my hon. Friend, and the Minister wrote a letter to him explaining why it is not considered necessary or appropriate to include such a provision. I agree with what the Minister said in that letter—I will not go into it because she may be planning to do that. In 1990, it was not considered necessary to include measures in legislation to ban the practice of inserting sperm into animals. That procedure is not part of science, and it is not appropriate for it to be dealt with in the Bill.
	Moreover, valuable science is being done, as the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Association of Medical Research Charities have said, involving the use of early germ line cells in animal models to explore how they develop in a in-vivo system—in a living system. We cannot do that in humans for all sorts of ethical reasons, but we permit the practice, under tight regulation, in animals. We do so to explore what causes infertility and, for example, what the impact of certain types of chemotherapy might be on infertility. The Bill's drafting means, for good reasons, that "gametes" includes germ line cells at any stage of their development, including immature germ-line cells found in the ovary and the testes, which are subject to such experiments. One could list—but I will not do so—papers that have been published in peer review journals using such work, and I have no doubt that such work is being done in this country. My hon. Friend's new clause would prevent that work, and he accepted in Committee, on the record, that that would be an unintended consequences of what I describe as an unnecessary step. I hope that the House is reassured that the amendment is unnecessary, but if that does not make the argument, the speech that we heard from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) put the fact that it would be inappropriate beyond any doubt.
	The third point is about the interesting issue that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate raises in amendment No. 47. We must accept—I hope that the Government will accept this—that it has not been possible to produce an exhaustive list of admixed embryo types. I do not believe that it is possible to do so; indeed, the Academy of Medical Sciences accepts in its paper that it is probably not possible. The Government have made the best attempt that they can and it is only right that we should accept that the list is not guaranteed to be exhaustive.
	The hon. Gentleman's amendment is a good example of some of the debates that we could have, but that is why we have the HFEA. It is there to ensure that scientists understand that there is a need to fall within the regulations where at all possible. I cannot imagine any scientist in this country seeking to identify types that would not come before the HFEA, so that they could argue in a court of law, "Well, it's not human enough at the point at which we were seeking to implant it to be covered by the HFEA." That is not how science works.

Evan Harris: It is certainly possible, but it is also possible that new primary legislation could be brought before the House if that was felt necessary, as happened over human reproductive cloning. In that case it was felt necessary to reassure the public through primary legislation that something that was not envisaged and not possible would also be illegal. So, we are not in an "It's now or nothing" situation.
	Let me also deal with the issue of definitions. A huge amount of effort has been put in, especially by Members of the House of Lords and the Government Bill team, to try to find an appropriate definition. A tribute must be paid to Lord Mackay in particular, who has struggled, even though he was not necessarily a huge fan of the legislation to start with, to find a way to deal with the issue. The Government have engaged on the subject and done the best that they feel they can.
	It would not be appropriate for the Government to argue—indeed, I hope that the Minister does not argue—that the list is definitive. However, it is as good as one can get while preserving the ability of scientists to do the research in a way that will be regulated. There is no scientist in the country who does not understand that such research will have to apply to the HFEA under one of the categories set out in the Bill.
	There are two potential gaps, one of which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned. Proposed new section 4A(6)(e) talks about an embryo that does not fall within paragraphs (a) to (d) which
	"contains both nuclear or mitochondrial DNA of a human and nuclear or mitochondrial DNA of an animal...but in which the animal DNA is not predominant."
	The key question, however, is at what point we are talking about the animal DNA not being pre-dominant, because that could vary. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the scientists pointed that out in evidence to the Committee. That is not a secret, which is why it would be appropriate for the Government not to recognise that the list is not perfect. Indeed, it cannot be perfect, but I argue that it is good enough.
	That is one problem. The second problem is that even if the hon. Gentleman is right that the tetraploidal complementation process that he mentioned falls outwith the provisions, his amendment does not solve the problem. It is quite possible to have complementation that does not involve tetraploid cells. One could inject into a more developed, normal diploid embryo a less developed human embryo, which would then predominate, causing the original embryo to become the extra-embryonic endoderm and the trophectoderm—the stuff that forms the placenta—as has been done in mice. His amendment does not refer to such an entity, however. So the hon. Gentleman is merely demonstrating that the clause is never going to be perfect, but it is clear that anyone attempting to implant an entity which arguably does not fall within the definition in clause 4 will have to apply for a licence to the animal procedures committee to implant it.
	When I spoke to the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber, he conceded, I hope it is fair to say, in answer to my question if one created an entity with human cells in an animal envelope—I do not believe that that is likely outside HFEA regulation in any event, for reasons that the Minister will explain—a licence would still be needed to implant it into an animal. One cannot just grab a pig from a farm, drag it into a lab and implant something into it without a licence.

John Gummer: As somebody who was responsible for that animal legislation, may I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that animal legislation is designed to protect animals and their welfare. One of our concerns must be, therefore, that it is not reasonable to use that legislation to deal with the problems under discussion. He may be right that that is not necessary, but it does not seem sensible to say that animal legislation of the kind that we have properly covers these circumstances. Surely if we find some gaps in the law, we might deal with those and make the law that much better. There may be still be other gaps, but why is he not willing to accept that the gaps that have been identified should be covered now, rather than left to the organisation outside or to secondary legislation?

Sally Keeble: I had not intended to speak to this group of amendments—I was going to on a later one—but having heard the comments in the debate, I thought it only fair to explain why I support the Bill as it stands. I do so as someone who has both written on the subject and had in vitro fertilisation treatment—having seen it from both sides of the equation.
	On the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), I completely agree with him that we do not know exactly where science will go, and that it is right to ensure that we do not have to keep coming back with primary legislation. He is right that we need to pass a Bill that is sufficient to deal with foreseeable developments in science.
	Looking through the Bill as it stands, and having listened to the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Minister, I believe that we need broad principles of legislation to underpin how different bits of research should be regarded. We also need a regulatory body able to interpret the legislation and take decisions about applications that come before it. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to comment further on this later, but I believe that the Bill provides a framework that allows for the sort of experiments described by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate to be managed and properly regulated.
	I share the concern of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that a list of possible future developments might not be exhaustive. That might mean going back to see how the science has developed and providing legislation and regulations to cover the cracks. Our approach is right and I would expect the broad terms of the Bill to be sufficient to enable the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to regulate in the desired areas.
	I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) that there are problems about the provision of infertility treatment, but I believe that we have one of the finest regulatory systems in the world. The HFEA has steered us through some very difficult times, sometimes with inadequate legislative tools. I hope that the Bill will deal effectively with a lot of the chinks. My constituents certainly want proper provision made for the regulation of these activities on the basis of sound ethical principles, and I think that the Bill provides that.
	On the amendments to prohibit the mixing of gametes, I believe that they would be extremely damaging to the treatment of some forms of infertility. The Bill provides for the ability to mix gametes under licence. I would argue that the key issue is the mixing of gametes, not how the gametes come to be mixed. It is not about artificial insemination of an animal with human sperm; it is about the mixing of the gametes. That is the real issue and that covers mixing them by whatever form. If these amendments were accepted, it would make it harder to understand some of the processes involved in infertility and difficult to deal with certain forms of male infertility in particular.

Dari Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of the fears expressed about ethics this afternoon stem from the fact that between 80 and 90 per cent. of the work done is done in private—with all the dangers that could attach itself to that fact? That is what people are worried about. Much of the work is not done within the NHS. So, fears about ethics arise and worries remain because, however good the regulation governing the work in the NHS, much of the work is done in private.

Mark Durkan: My hon. Friend says that scientists and clinicians must be equipped with the tools they need. Surely the tools they need include clear, solid legislation, so amendments that identify loopholes in this proposed legislation should be addressed. That is part of the process of us providing them with the tools. They are getting all the tools that the Government want them to get; it is just that some of them are shoddy and not fit for purpose, and we are trying to make sure that they are precision tools designed to reflect the will of Parliament.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), who makes a powerful point that I wish to reinforce in my short speech. It must be very frustrating for all the Members who want to speak to the next six groups of amendments that there is no time to discuss such important issues. That is the Government's fault entirely, and they should be ashamed of themselves. They could have allowed the House to sit through the night, so that everyone could have expressed their point of view on such an important matter. The Government's management of the House is quite appalling.
	I want to support amendment No. 49, in the name of the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), and amendment No. 41, in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Both amendments are concerned with proposed new section 3ZA(5) to the 1990 Act and are similar to amendment No. 46, to which I was a co-signatory but which was not selected.
	Today, the House is considering Government legislation that is going to repeal the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 and open a door for reproductive cloning to take place without the need for fresh primary legislation. Through subsections (2) to (4) of proposed new section 3ZA, the Government appear to place very tight restrictions on what type of embryos can be implanted in a woman. The problem arises, however, in proposed new section 3ZA(5)—a loophole that can overturn these restrictions. If the procedure in question is undertaken to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial disease, the provisions of proposed new sections 3ZA(2) to 3ZA(4) need not apply, and regulations could allow reproductive cloning and other types of designer babies.
	In the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001, the Government outlined their position against the controversial technology. Reproductive cloning uses somatic cell nuclear transfer to create animals that are genetically identical. It involves the transfer of a nucleus from a donor adult cell to an egg that has had its nucleus removed. The egg is then treated with either chemicals or electric current, and if it begins to divide normally, it is transferred into the uterus of the surrogate mother, where it will develop. A classic example of that process is Dolly the sheep.
	Under the proposed new legislation, that process could be allowed to create human clones. Regulations could allow a nucleus to be removed from an adult cell from a woman with mitochondrial disease and to be placed in a donor egg with healthy mitochondria, and from there a clone could be produced. In such a case, it would not have the healthy mitochondrial DNA from the second woman. That procedure, which would not involve fertilisation and would remove the need for a man, was suggested some time ago in a report in the  British Medical Journal as a potential way to treat mitochondrial disease. Under the Bill, the protection previously provided against this procedure by the 2001 Act would no longer be in place, as that Act is abolished by clause 3(6) and schedule 8.
	Although the Government have regularly stated that they do not intend to use the Bill to allow reproductive cloning, the repeal of the 2001 Act would pave the way for scientists to use reproductive cloning to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disease. No matter what the Government intend, some scientists would, unfortunately, welcome legislation allowing reproductive cloning and would look to use it to allow them to experiment with human life further. That problem could be avoided simply by removing proposed new section 3ZA(5).
	The second issue that I wish to address is designer babies, one type of which is the "multi-parent" baby. To prevent mitochondrial diseases caused by faulty mitochondria from being passed to offspring, attempts are being made to make what the press have termed three-parent babies. What happens is either that a donor egg with healthy mitochondria with its nucleus removed is used to house the healthy nucleus from the egg with faulty mitochondria and this reconstructed egg is then fertilised by sperm through IVF; or that fertilisation occurs first, and is followed by nuclear transfer into an embryo with healthy mitochondria that has had its nucleus removed.
	Regulations under proposed new section 3ZA(5) could permit those embryos to be placed into the uterus and allowed to develop into a baby. That would be a three- parent baby, created using DNA from three people; it would involve DNA from the nucleus of one woman's egg, the DNA from the mitochondria of the donor woman's egg and nuclear DNA from the father's sperm.
	There is a third issue to address. As well as allowing three-parent babies and reproductive cloning, if the mitochondrial disease was caused by flaws in the nucleus, the loophole in proposed new section 3ZA(5) would also allow genetic engineering of nuclear DNA— [Interruption.]

William Cash: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand what I am about to say. He is right in what he is saying, but I am concerned that we will not reach the incredibly important amendments on licensing, consent and parenthood. It is not his, and I commend what he is saying, but I ask most earnestly that he allows us the chance to get on to those groups. We have been denied time by the Government, and there are winding-up speeches to come, so I ask him to be good enough to remember that those other matters should be at least voted on by the House.

Jim Sheridan: The hon. Gentleman is new in the House, so may I give him some advice? He should take no advice on about brevity or cutting his speech from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

Amendment made: No. 20, page 51, line 42 [Clause 64], at end insert—
	'( ) An order under this section which modifies an enactment in consequence of any provision of Part 2 may modify subsection (5) of section 53 (interpretation of references to father etc.).'.— [Dawn Primarolo.]

Ian Gibson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his tenacity and acknowledge how enjoyable it has been working on the survey with him.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the scientists who came to our inquiry had some ideas about conducting it along the right lines in order to get an answer one way or the other. It certainly was my understanding when we talked to the previous Minister that that was going to happen. I would like publicly to congratulate Al Rowland, whom I met at Massey. He gave me the data relating to his work; it has opened up a hornet's nest that cannot be denied in terms of further research.

John Baron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I have already put on record my thanks to him for being a co-party in our inquiry, and in the efforts that we have made so far. I am pleased to hear his confirmation that it was our understanding that an Al Rowland-type study would be undertaken if it was peer-reviewed, which it has now been. I hope that the new Minister will tell us whether the Government intend to keep the promise made at our meeting.
	The Busby report is important for a similar reason. It examines the legacy of nuclear testing for subsequent and future generations. The results of a questionnaire study of BNTVA members and their offspring conducted last year suggest much higher levels of miscarriage, still birth, infant mortality and congenital illness in veterans' children, both in a national context and in the context of control children.
	Some of the experiences revealed by the study are quite distressing. Among veterans the number of miscarriages was 105, compared with 18 in the control group. The rate of still births was 26 per 1,000 births, compared with 10 in the control group. The rate of congenital defects among veterans' children was almost 10 times that among other children. The defects included cataracts at birth, deformed spines, muscle wasting, deafness, excess and missing teeth, and holes in the stomach and heart. My constituent Mr. Eric Everard certainly believes that the effects of the radiation to which he was exposed were passed on to his son Darran, who died of a genetic connective tissue disease when he was only 22 years old. Such reports are not unusual among veterans. Dr. Busby concluded:
	"It is clear that the veterans received significant genetic damage as a result of their period near the test sites."
	The findings of that research echoed the earlier findings of Dr. Sue Rabbitt Roth of Dundee university, which I understand was peer-reviewed in 1999—a fact overlooked by the Government.
	That snapshot is deeply worrying, and suggests a sinister genetic legacy for future generations. I would go as far as to suggest that there is a ticking time bomb of ill health that the Government need to recognise. The Minister must not underestimate the real anger that exists outside this place about Government inaction. To help future generations, we need to understand the scope of the problem. That is why I believe that Dr. Busby's study should be replicated rigorously, and the Government should provide the funds.
	The final recommendation of our inquiry report concerned pension appeal tribunals, which provide the mechanism for veterans or their widows to appeal against the more or less automatic decision not to award a war pension. The system is complex and long-winded and judgment is often inconsistent, with precedent not being applied from one hearing to the next. Veterans with almost identical experiences and conditions receive different outcomes. Our inquiry therefore called for a complete overhaul of the system, perhaps even removing nuclear test veterans from the war pensions process altogether because they are such a unique group. I suggest that the Minister and representatives of the Ministry of Defence should sit down with the veterans and sort the problem out—a process that will require political courage and leadership.
	Let me deliver a final thought to the Minister. We are not dealing with this issue in isolation, and we are already being left hopelessly far behind other nations in terms of honouring our debt of gratitude to veterans. The Isle of Man Government will pay compensation in the region of £8,000 to each of the estimated eight Manx veterans involved in the tests, the New Zealand Government have already provided money for the Al Rowlands experiments and scientific tests, and the Canadian Government have offered to settle with their test veterans. In the United States, "atomic veterans" are eligible for presumptive compensation based on 21 identified cancers. A person who has one of those cancers and was involved in the tests will receive compensation automatically.
	The contrast between the different approaches is well illustrated by the case of Mr. Roy Prescott, whose son wrote to me during our inquiry. He was one of 500 British servicemen who, having served on Christmas Island, were loaned to the United States for further tests on the island in the early 1960s. Mr. Prescott later became ill and applied for a British war pension, but that was turned down. He then applied to the United States compensation programme, was accepted and received a substantial one-off payment. We therefore see the absurdity of other countries compensating our own veterans because we have failed to do so.
	The Ministry of Defence has been cagey and resistant for too long. We owe a duty of care to our test veterans. The Minister is new in his position and I ask him to commit to a fresh appraisal regarding our debt of gratitude. This is not a party political issue. My early-day motion 156 attracted signatures from Members in all parts of the House. I therefore ask the Minister some very simple questions. Will he now replicate the Rowland study on British veterans? What further study is he prepared to carry out on the descendents of veterans—a matter that could be with us for many years to come? Will he sit down with veterans and address the question of tribunals and compensation, and do it now?
	These veterans just want justice for themselves and their descendents. They served their country. What they now expect is their country to be honest with them. While any solution is likely to be characterised as much by political compromise as by scientific rigour, this is, without doubt, a political problem. Time is now short, and I suggest to the new Minister that the best should not be the enemy of the good.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to the work done by him and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). I know about the tremendous work they contributed to the inquiry of last year.
	I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I wish to begin by putting it on the record that the Ministry of Defence recognises the debt of gratitude we have to the servicemen who took part in these nuclear tests. They were important tests that helped to keep this nation secure at a difficult time in terms of nuclear technology. The hon. Gentleman rightly noted that if harm has been caused to these individuals and the Ministry of Defence and this nation are responsible, they should be offered redress. However, I think he would agree with me that any claim for compensation should be evidence-based. Evidence should be brought forward and determined on an individual basis.
	I also think we can agree that there is no doubt about the sincerity of the veterans; I would not question for one minute their testimony or that of their families. It is important that we do not question or criticise them in any way. The vital issue, however, is whether we can link the conditions that some individuals and families have with those individuals having been present at the nuclear tests. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, previous Governments as well as this Government have looked at the evidence and have come to the conclusion that no evidence has been demonstrated to link those conditions with presence at the tests.
	The hon. Gentleman's report conceded that current scientific evidence does not generally support the view that there has been an increased risk of ill health or death among the test participants. Even though Dr. Rowland's recent study indicates that genetic damage was present among the small cohort of individuals that he examined, it did not go on to draw any link between the genetic abnormalities found in the chromosomes and any conditions such as cancers. That report has been held up as an important piece of research, but it does not help to move forward the argument for drawing that link between damage to chromosomes and conditions such as cancers that developed later.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would give a commitment to replicate the Rowland study. He mentioned a meeting. I was not present, so I have asked my officials what was said. They have told me that it is quite clear that no clear commitment was given. I have examined the study in detail since I found that the debate was coming up, and I have come to the conclusion that it would be very difficult to replicate in the case of the individuals whom we are discussing. I am not sure what such a study would add to the debate if it led to the same conclusions that Rowland came to.